- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
cwald wrote:Idaho Coug wrote:
It really is interesting that literally the exact same feeling that accompanies a heart felt prayer or religious talk also accompanies a song, book, movie, view of nature, or any number of things in our life that can be considered quite seperate from our LDS rituals. And even more interesting at least for me to note is that I have experienced what I consider to be the spirit
more through expriences removed from the LDS Church than those experinces within it.That is my experience as well. Amen brother, Amen.
Yea, and a little beef I have is that many members, when you say that, will say something like, “well, it’s not the same as the “true spirit…!” I think that is one of the most arrogant things for them to say!
(ok, done whining…)
😆 Idaho Coug wrote:
It really is interesting that literally the exact same feeling that accompanies a heart felt prayer or religious talk also accompanies a song, book, movie, view of nature, or any number of things in our life that can be considered quite seperate from our LDS rituals. And even more interesting at least for me to note is that I have experienced what I consider to be the spirit more through expriences removed from the LDS Church than those experinces within it.Totally agree. It makes me wonder though, if “feeling the spirit” is just an over-romanticized way of saying “emotionally moved”. Sometimes our wording can be deceptive, and we impose a supernatural label on something that’s purely human and scientifically understood. There’s nothing mystical about it – beautiful, yes, but not mystical.
Awesome discussion! I have changed my view, like many others, of the meaning of “encountering” the spirit (thanks Nathan for that great way of saying it better!). I came to the conclusion that encountering the spirit was an experience of transcendent truth … but this was coming from
within me, and is a first-hand encounter with the beauty and meaning of an idea. I am not saying this isn’t caused by a divine force known as The Holy Ghost, but the “truth” being experienced is inside me and not necessarily in that external thing that is triggering this encounter (scripture, testimony, a great song, a great poem). Obviously Shrek is a fictional movie. Encountering the Spirit while watching it is not confirmation of it being “true” in the sense that an ogre named Shrek lives in a swamp. But that is sort of what most members of the Church do with the Book of Mormon. Because they feel the Spirit, the Book is a real history. To me, that misses the point. It is great to wonder about the historicity of the BofM. It is
COMPLETELYfine to believe it is historical. I mean that sincerely. But in the end, that isn’t really the point. Religion is the science of crafting a meaningful human experience. The scriptures are theory text books in that class. I have no problem with beautiful works of art (movies, music, paintings, poetry) also being text books for life. If its good, and it makes you a good person, expanding your humanity, filling you with love and compassion, then I say go with it!
I opt for phrases such as “experience the Spirit” and “encounter the Spirit” for two reasons. One, is an effort to correct the sentimentalism we Latter-day Saints use as a crutch. My blood pressure boils when I thumb through the Deseret Bookstore advertisement flyers that come in the mail. It pains me to see such principles and experiences serve as marketing campaigns and slogans. As much as I know the emotions are acted upon in a spiritual experience, it frustrates me when spiritual experiences are reduced to a merely emotional experience–so “feeling the Spirit” dismisses the intellectual and spiritual components. Second, the root word in “experience” means to test or try. and the root word in “encounter” means to be against, and can imply struggle. You can think of this as the struggle of Jacob as he wrestled the Lord (or an angle of the Lord), or the struggle we all undergo as “natural” men and women, striving to yield to the Spirit (Mosiah 3:19). Holiness before God, as experienced by our Muslim brothers and sisters, is understood as a struggle: a jihad.All words become appropriated and misappropriated over time. As the words most central to our lives lose their significance or take on unintended meaning, it is our duty to find or make new ones. Words, after all, are credited with a critical role in the creation and the redemption of humanity.
The clincher is that the authors of the Muppet Movie and Shrek would admit that they were fictional. That’s not to say that they don’t have some merit in them somewhere. Sam, It’s only a “clincher” if there is an argument that Shrek and the Muppetts are
identicalto Jesus’ parables and the flood story. The comparisons are made to highlight the similarities, which implies there are also differences. And yes, you pointed out one of the obvious differences. With only two sentences, I’m not sure where your emphasis is though: “authors”, “admit”, or “fictional”. Since the “author” of the flood story is not around to ask, it is an argument from silence–but my gut says that throughout most of human history the flood story was assumed to be factual–not fictional. I try to imagine someone asking Jesus at the conclusion of his parable of the good Samaritan–“Well, is that story fact or fiction?” I’m guessing that you’re tying this to The Book of Mormonand claims for its origins. But if we go there, then the rest of the world’s sacred literature comes into the discussion (as it should) and we are right back at the question of “truth”, “goodness” and the spiritual experience as a means of identifying goodness. Thanks for allowing me to push you on this. Nathan
Brian Johnston wrote:Obviously Shrek is a fictional movie. Encountering the Spirit while watching it is not confirmation of it being “true” in the sense that an ogre named Shrek lives in a swamp. But that is sort of what most members of the Church do with the Book of Mormon. Because they feel the Spirit, the Book is a real history. To me, that misses the point. It is great to wonder about the historicity of the BofM. It is COMPLETELY fine to believe it is historical. I mean that sincerely. But in the end, that isn’t really the point. Religion is the science of crafting a meaningful human experience.
I love this.
Nathan wrote:Sam,
It’s only a “clincher” if there is an argument that Shrek and the Muppetts are
identicalto Jesus’ parables and the flood story. The comparisons are made to highlight the similarities, which implies there are also differences. And yes, you pointed out one of the obvious differences. With only two sentences, I’m not sure where your emphasis is though: “authors”, “admit”, or “fictional”. Since the “author” of the flood story is not around to ask, it is an argument from silence–but my gut says that throughout most of human history the flood story was assumed to be factual–not fictional. I try to imagine someone asking Jesus at the conclusion of his parable of the good Samaritan–“Well, is that story fact or fiction?” I’m guessing that you’re tying this to The Book of Mormonand claims for its origins. But if we go there, then the rest of the world’s sacred literature comes into the discussion (as it should) and we are right back at the question of “truth”, “goodness” and the spiritual experience as a means of identifying goodness. Thanks for allowing me to push you on this. Nathan
I don’t think it’s a valid comparison.
The parables are not “true”, they’re teaching methods, not factual stories. They have truth in them, but they are not factual. In advanced philosophy, one of the things which continually comes up is the limit of language, and we’re dealing with it here. English is notoriously weak in this area.
The Muppets and Shrek are fiction, openly sold as such, and AFAIK not many people who are sane claim otherwise. I have a soft spot for the Muppets, but both of these are commercial pap to keep the masses quiet. They’re not going to have any really deep fundamental meanings, because that would be too threatening and keep the cinema takings down.
Quote:They’re not going to have any really deep fundamental meanings
I think many works of obvious fiction do have deep, fundamental meanings and teach truth – including Shrek and the Muppets. I also believe when those fundamental truths are taught, people can receive real “witnesses of the Spirit” (recognize the truth they hear) from the presentation.
I’m not sure, Sam, what line you are drawing between the parables (fictional stories told to teach truth) and movies or novels (fictional stories often told to teach truth). I have a hard time drawing a categorical line. Rather, I would look at each movie or novel individually, just as I would look at any parable individually, to see whether or not there was any deep, fundamental meaning I could draw from it. Honestly, there are a couple of parables that just don’t do much for me as an individual – but Shrek (just as one example) gives me more than one message that actually does resonate.
Quote:I think many works of obvious fiction do have deep, fundamental meanings and teach truth
Yeah, but not the really commercial ones, I’m afraid. When they do, it’s nearly always watered down, simplified, or toned down to be acceptable to the corporation. You get the big meanings in Tolstoy, Stendhal, Ambrose Bierce and Stephen Crane, not in Mel Gibson’s
The Patriot, Rambo, Disney’s Mulanor Rush Hour 5. The parables weren’t told to make millions of dollars. Shrek was.
I think we have a problem here with the word “true”, although most of the board members are unaware of it. Most languages distinguish between different types, and different types of knowing – German has “wissen” & “kennen”, Spanish has “saber” and “conocer” etc. English has lost this. Shrek is not true in the sense of being factual, it’s not particularly spiritual as it was produced mainly for financial gain, it isn’t particularly profound, it’s not very intellectually stimulating, and it’s hard to think of many original ideas in it.
Sam, Right now I want to address any one of the several articulate points you’ve made, but all I can think about is Rush Hour 5! It’s almost midnight here so let’s just agree that you’re wrong, sound fair?
Thanks for your patience.
Nathan
Sorry, Nathan, nothing personal, but I believe that I’m not. It’s not a good comparison. A commercial film is merely to make money by entertaining people, with any messages being incidental. A parable’s main purpose is to transmit a message, with the story being incidental.
I think we’ve also got to discuss what “true” means here, because your definition of it is unusual.
Alright brother, game on! Let’s start with your strong point that English is not the best language when attempting to define a word like “truth”. Sure. Okay. But this true of most critical, technical words such as love, faith, repentance, etc. So what would you propose as the categories or types of truth? What is the relatioship between truth and fact? If some truths deserve our preference over others, why? Can something be true for one person but not true for another? If, for some, goodness is an acceptable synonym for truth, does it follow that evil and falsehood have the same relationship? How would you distinguish truths that may change over time and those that don’t? Are there such truths? How do you propose we improve our understanding and use of the term “truth”? Nathan (Forgive me if I wait to respond to your next reply; I’m beat!)
Quote:A parable’s main purpose is to transmit a message, with the story being incidental.
I believe the story of a parable is critical to transmitting its message. In fact, I believe using a story that resonates with the hearer is what allows the message to be “heard” and understood. There are lots of parables (throughout all genres) that really suck at delivering a message (and even at least a couple of Jesus’ parables don’t convey their message very well to people whose lives are radically different than the lives of those who heard him preach), and it’s generally because the story used to convey the message sucks (or is foreign to the hearers). I think the exact same thing is true of movies and novels and plays and songs and any other story-telling avenue.
I honestly think, Sam, that this is one area where we might just end up arguing over something we each see very, very differently without any chance of mutual edification. Therefore, I think I’m going to step aside.
SamBee wrote:Sorry, Nathan, nothing personal, but I believe that I’m not.
It’s not a good comparison. A commercial film is merely to make money by entertaining people, with any messages being incidental. A parable’s main purpose is to transmit a message, with the story being incidental.
I think we’ve also got to discuss what “true” means here, because your definition of it is unusual.
My signature line was very meaningful to me, even though it came from a commercial film intended to make money. The ones that bring a level of meaning can help the story become popular and make money.Many times, truth just depends greatly on our point of view.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.